Were animals made before humans or after?

[Assyrian]

Because it was a special garden.

That is no reason to think animals and birds were created twice.

In fact animals and birds were created from the same red earth, adamah, Adam was created from, and were brought to Adam in the garden, the same as Adam was created and then put in the garden.
Gen 2:7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, adamah, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground, adamah, the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

So if you agree that God did not create man and woman twice then it is not a separate account. It is a detailed account of the day he created man and woman, day 6....and details about the creation of a special garden with special fruit trees and special animals just for Adam and Eve.

Jesus was only crucified once yet there are four separate accounts of his life and crucifixion. You can't just claim it is meant to be a detailed account of days six when the text says no such thing and features not just the creation of Adam and Eve day 6 in Genesis 1, but the earth before there were plants, day 3, and the creation of birds, days 5. There is nothing in the account to tie it exclusively to day 6, or suggest we are supposed to.

You need to read the account to see what the narrative tells us, not read it trying to make it fit another passage, or read it to fit what other people told you it was supposed to mean. It is a beautiful story with deep meaning and wry humour, but you miss most of that if you spend your time trying to make the narrative fit you preconceptions of how it should be told.

 

[greentwiga]

The plants or shrubs, siyach, referred to in Genesis 2:5 are not domesticated plants, take a look at the other passages where they are referred to.

Gen 21:14 So Abraham rose early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. 15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the child under one of the bushes.

Job 30:3 Through want and hard hunger they gnaw the dry ground by night in waste and desolation; 4 they pick saltwort and the leaves of bushes, and the roots of the broom tree for their food. 5 They are driven out from human company; they shout after them as after a thief. 6 In the gullies of the torrents they must dwell, in holes of the earth and of the rocks. 7 Among the bushes they bray; under the nettles they huddle together.

The bushes of the field are desert scrub plants and even these weren't able to grow in Genesis 2:5 because there was no rain.

Actually Genesis 2 makes a clear distinction between beasts of the field and domesticated livestock. Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. And if you look in Genesis 3 the serpent was linked with beasts of the field Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. Snakes are wild animals not domesticated.

No, all you have done is show that "bushes" can mean "wild bushes", same for "snakes" (though it says serpents not snakes). Look up passages that say "wild beasts", and "beasts of the field", and only use those passages. You will see the difference. An online Bible should search for those phrases.

 

[Assyrian]

No, all you have done is show that "bushes" can mean "wild bushes", same for "snakes" (though it says serpents not snakes). Look up passages that say "wild beasts", and "beasts of the field", and only use those passages. You will see the difference. An online Bible should search for those phrases.

If every other place where it talks of bushes refers to wild desert plants, claiming they are agricultural plants it is really reading ideas into Genesis rather than basing our understanding on the text. I use e-sword rather the online bible (though I do have it on my computer), but rather "wild beasts" or "beasts of the field" which will depend on the translation you choose and may include different Hebrew phrases translated the same way, it is better to search for the Strongs numbers, H2416 H7704. Again you have to exclude verses that have both Hebrew words but in different parts of the verse rather than as the phrase beast of the field. But looking at all the passages that say chai saday, they really are wild animals, often distinguished from liveestock or the sort of wild animals you wouldn't want to meet along in the woods on a dark night. So if shrubs are wild desert bushes and and beasts of the field are wild animals, why would you think shrubs of the field are domesticated crops?

 

[greentwiga]

If every other place where it talks of bushes refers to wild desert plants, claiming they are agricultural plants it is really reading ideas into Genesis rather than basing our understanding on the text. I use e-sword rather the online bible (though I do have it on my computer), but rather "wild beasts" or "beasts of the field" which will depend on the translation you choose and may include different Hebrew phrases translated the same way, it is better to search for the Strongs numbers, H2416 H7704. Again you have to exclude verses that have both Hebrew words but in different parts of the verse rather than as the phrase beast of the field. But looking at all the passages that say chai saday, they really are wild animals, often distinguished from liveestock or the sort of wild animals you wouldn't want to meet along in the woods on a dark night. So if shrubs are wild desert bushes and and beasts of the field are wild animals, why would you think shrubs of the field are domesticated crops?

22 Now the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand toward the sky, that hail may fall on all the land of Egypt, on man and on beast and on every plant of the field, throughout the land of Egypt.” 23 Moses stretched out his staff toward the sky, and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and fire ran down to the earth. And the Lord rained hail on the land of Egypt. 24 So there was hail, and fire flashing continually in the midst of the hail, very severe, such as had not been in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. 25 The hail struck all that was in the field through all the land of Egypt, both man and beast; the hail also struck every plant of the field and shattered every tree of the field. 26 Only in the land of Goshen, where the sons of Israel were, there was no hail.
27 Then Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “I have sinned this time; the Lord is the righteous one, and I and my people are the wicked ones. 28 Make supplication to the Lord, for there has been enough of God’s thunder and hail; and I will let you go, and you shall stay no longer.” 29 Moses said to him, “As soon as I go out of the city, I will spread out my hands to the Lord; the thunder will cease and there will be hail no longer, that you may know that the earth is the Lord’s. 30 But as for you and your servants, I know that you do not yet fear the Lord God.” 31 (Now the flax and the barley were ruined, for the barley was in the ear and the flax was in bud. 32 But the wheat and the spelt were not ruined, for they ripen late.) 33 So Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh, and spread out his hands to the Lord; and the thunder and the hail ceased, and rain no longer poured on the earth. 34 But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. 35 Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he did not let the sons of Israel go, just as the Lord had spoken through Moses.


Notice here that plants of the field are clearly domestic flax, barley, wheat, and spelt

 

[greentwiga]

If every other place where it talks of bushes refers to wild desert plants, claiming they are agricultural plants it is really reading ideas into Genesis rather than basing our understanding on the text. I use e-sword rather the online bible (though I do have it on my computer), but rather "wild beasts" or "beasts of the field" which will depend on the translation you choose and may include different Hebrew phrases translated the same way, it is better to search for the Strongs numbers, H2416 H7704. Again you have to exclude verses that have both Hebrew words but in different parts of the verse rather than as the phrase beast of the field. But looking at all the passages that say chai saday, they really are wild animals, often distinguished from liveestock or the sort of wild animals you wouldn't want to meet along in the woods on a dark night. So if shrubs are wild desert bushes and and beasts of the field are wild animals, why would you think shrubs of the field are domesticated crops?

Strongs has many Hebrew words translated as wild. Saday is clearly of "flat" I do grant you that it is most often translated as wild when connected with beast, but it is contrasted with beats of the forest, mountains, or earth.

Still,in Gen 3, it says; 18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

Plants of the field seem to include those that are made into bread.

 

[pshun2404]

Genesis 1 says before and Genesis 2 says they were created after humans. Which is right?????

Both...the second set were given nephesh (soulish qualities) that could be friends for men and become domesticated....Genesis 1 speaks of creation (bara) and that is its point (God created), Genesis 2 speaks of being formed or made (yatzar - to give form to) and these are two aspects of the one process God employed in bringing his ideation from nothingness into temporal reality. All was accomplished by His word...He speaks and it is but not always immediately in a temporal sense...the Son was given for us since before the foundation of the world but temporally did not become until the cross...

 

[Assyrian]

22 Now the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand toward the sky, that hail may fall on all the land of Egypt, on man and on beast and on every plant of the field, throughout the land of Egypt.” 23 Moses stretched out his staff toward the sky, and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and fire ran down to the earth. And the Lord rained hail on the land of Egypt. 24 So there was hail, and fire flashing continually in the midst of the hail, very severe, such as had not been in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. 25 The hail struck all that was in the field through all the land of Egypt, both man and beast; the hail also struck every plant of the field and shattered every tree of the field. 26 Only in the land of Goshen, where the sons of Israel were, there was no hail.
27 Then Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “I have sinned this time; the Lord is the righteous one, and I and my people are the wicked ones. 28 Make supplication to the Lord, for there has been enough of God’s thunder and hail; and I will let you go, and you shall stay no longer.” 29 Moses said to him, “As soon as I go out of the city, I will spread out my hands to the Lord; the thunder will cease and there will be hail no longer, that you may know that the earth is the Lord’s. 30 But as for you and your servants, I know that you do not yet fear the Lord God.” 31 (Now the flax and the barley were ruined, for the barley was in the ear and the flax was in bud. 32 But the wheat and the spelt were not ruined, for they ripen late.) 33 So Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh, and spread out his hands to the Lord; and the thunder and the hail ceased, and rain no longer poured on the earth. 34 But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. 35 Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he did not let the sons of Israel go, just as the Lord had spoken through Moses.

Notice here that plants of the field are clearly domestic flax, barley, wheat, and spelt

So what are the shattered trees doing there? The main meaning of eseb is grass, but the hail wasn't limited to falling on man, beast and grass of the field, the plague was that the hail would fall on everything from men and beasts, to the grass of the field. That is why trees were affected too along with flax and barley.

But notice how far flax and barley are from the verses that mention plants of the field? If you want to see a much closer connection showing what sort of plants they are look at: Deut 11:14 he will give the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the later rain, that you may gather in your grain and your wine and your oil. 15 And he will give grass in your fields for your livestock, and you shall eat and be full. Here grass of the fields are distinguished from the grain, vines and olive trees that people eat and are instead the plants livestock eat.

 

[Assyrian]

Strongs has many Hebrew words translated as wild. Saday is clearly of "flat" I do grant you that it is most often translated as wild when connected with beast, but it is contrasted with beats of the forest, mountains, or earth.

I don't know that it is contrast. Job 40:20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. Here beasts of the field can be found in the mountains.

There is a contrast between beast of the field and beast of the forest in Isaiah 56:9 All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest. But the contrast is only in where they made their home, whether in open grasslands of in forests, they were still wild ravenous animals.

Still,in Gen 3, it says; 18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

Plants of the field seem to include those that are made into bread.

Or plants that can be eaten when you efforts at growing crops fail. Look at the verse that goes before it as well.

Gen 3:17 cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
Adam was going to try to till the ground, but would be much more successful at growing thistles and thorn rather than wheat. As a result he would have to forage for wild herbs to supplement the meagre crops he raised. Don't read to much into the word bread because it can mean any sort of food, even fruit. Jer 11:19 Let us destroy the tree with its fruit. It is even translated meat 10 times in the AV.

 

[greentwiga]

I don't know that it is contrast. Job 40:20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. Here beasts of the field can be found in the mountains.

There is a contrast between beast of the field and beast of the forest in Isaiah 56:9 All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest. But the contrast is only in where they made their home, whether in open grasslands of in forests, they were still wild ravenous animals.



Or plants that can be eaten when you efforts at growing crops fail. Look at the verse that goes before it as well.

Gen 3:17 cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
Adam was going to try to till the ground, but would be much more successful at growing thistles and thorn rather than wheat. As a result he would have to forage for wild herbs to supplement the meagre crops he raised. Don't read to much into the word bread because it can mean any sort of food, even fruit. Jer 11:19 Let us destroy the tree with its fruit. It is even translated meat 10 times in the AV.

Look at the history of Agriculture. Before the Younger Dryas, people just harvested wild wheat. They didn't struggle with thorns and thistles, which are specialists in disturbed land such as burned land. The harvesters simply went where the stands of wheat were thick. Then after the Younger Dryas, Agriculture appears, with the agriculture package including wheat,lentils, and chickpeas. Now they cultivated or tilled the ground before planting the seeds. Agricultural tilling creates disturbed ground and farmers ever since then have fought thorns and thistles. Furthermore, domestic plants can't grow without either man tilling the ground or reverting to the wild form.

As for Egypt, yes, other things were hit by the hail also, as the Bible says, but the plants of the field were also hit and only two kinds of the grassy crops were destroyed.

I agree. There are wild beasts that live in the flat lands, and sometimes different kinds of wild beasts live in Mountains or in forests. I am only talking about the Bible using the term plants of the fields (or flat open plains) to mean, at times, domestic plants.

 

[Assyrian]

Look at the history of Agriculture. Before the Younger Dryas, people just harvested wild wheat. They didn't struggle with thorns and thistles, which are specialists in disturbed land such as burned land. The harvesters simply went where the stands of wheat were thick. Then after the Younger Dryas, Agriculture appears, with the agriculture package including wheat,lentils, and chickpeas. Now they cultivated or tilled the ground before planting the seeds. Agricultural tilling creates disturbed ground and farmers ever since then have fought thorns and thistles. Furthermore, domestic plants can't grow without either man tilling the ground or reverting to the wild form.

Not sure what you are trying to say with that.

As for Egypt, yes, other things were hit by the hail also, as the Bible says, but the plants of the field were also hit and only two kinds of the grassy crops were destroyed.

What you are trying to do is identify plants of the field with flax and barley, they occur in the same passage, but seven verse apart from each other. Much better to rely on verses that show us the sorts of vegetation plants of the field were, as we see in Deut 11:14 they were the sort of vegetation people led their flocks of sheep and goats out to graze on, they kept the livestock away from their flax and barley.

I agree. There are wild beasts that live in the flat lands, and sometimes different kinds of wild beasts live in Mountains or in forests. I am only talking about the Bible using the term plants of the fields (or flat open plains) to mean, at times, domestic plants.

And as I showed you you it meant grazing pastures not domesticated crop. Remember how it was not just plants of the field that couldn't grow without rain or a man to til the ground, neither could shrubs of the field? I showed you shrubs here referred to desert scrub vegetation. These are not cultivated plants being described here. What you need to do is ask yourself why Genesis say these wild plants couldn't grow without rain of a gardener, not try to reinterpret them as agricultural plants when Genesis uses words for plants in the wilderness and the phrase 'of the field' is used for wild animals and plants.

 

[Calminian]

Notice that in Ge 1, Plants and beasts were created before man was. In Gen 2, Plants of the field, and beasts of the field were created after man. Science has shown that domestic plants and domestic animals both came into being after man came along. The Bible makes a clear contrast between wild animals and animals of the field, so I have no problem saying "Of the field" was their way of saying domesticated.

This is close, but the passage here actually does not make a chronological statement about the order these animals were created. There's no need to add a secondary creation of domestic animals and plants to the passage.

I firmly believe Gen. 2:5 (actually 2:4b) starts a new account likely by a new author. In Gen. 5 it states, "this is the book of the accounts of Adam" and I believe this spans from Gen. 2:4b-5:1a. This was actually Adam's account of his life in Eden and afterward. His account starts with the words, "When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens......" Adam had to explain to the reader that the animals were created, so added this for clarity, but there's no reason to take it strictly chronologically. The NIV rightly translates this:

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.​

Perfectly valid translation. Perfectly understandable why Adam would offer this information being this was originally a separate document and readers may not have had the creation account for context.

 

[greentwiga]

Gen 2:4 says, These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

the generations of Adam come in another chap. I am not trying to add in another creation so much as just following the text. The text is a clear account of the moment and location that wheat was domesticated. The location is very specific and agrees perfectly with science.

 

[SG9]

Genesis 1 says before and Genesis 2 says they were created after humans. Which is right?????

Hello my friend, to start with, you're interpreting the scriptures incorrectly; the beasts of the 'earth' are not the same as the beasts of the 'field', and they are just the way that God tells it in the Bible. The beasts of the earth are natural and wildlife beasts while the 'beasts of the field' is a allegorical figure that symbolizes people and the parallel to this is Job chapter 5:23 where there's 'stones of the field' and 'beasts of the field' in the same verse, the same covenant and the same 'field'.

Job 5:23
King James Version (KJV)
23 For thou shalt be in league with the stones of the field: and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee.

Job 5:23
New International Version (NIV)
23 For you will have a covenant with the stones of the field,
and the wild animals will be at peace with you.

Job 5:23
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
23 for you will be in league with the stones in the field,
and the wild animals will be at peace with you.

The word 'wild' was added in by people who read the text literally. They must then believe that men can talk to rocks, and perhaps this is where the silly idea of talking to rocks came from?

Without listing all that I have searched, all the Bible versions that I did search all were written like the KJV, so no need to post them, on the other hand we have two Bible versions that added the 'wild' in the beast, and this is in error and this interpretation actually renders God's law and salvation atonement null and void.

Genesis offers little details but they can be found in other scriptures, and Job 5 points back to the same covenant made with man in Genesis on the seventh day. The logic is simple, if a covenant is made with stones then it's symbolic and those men who make this covenant did not talk to rocks, this meaning that God's son's are sane. The same stands for the beast, they too must be symbolic for other people because it doesn't make sense to make a covenant with stones or rocks to have peace with wild beasts, and when did man ever have spiritual conflicts with the wild beasts? This must make sense or else we suggest that the men in the Bible who made a covenant were insane and they talked to rocks when they made a covenant with animals.

This actually brings God down to the level as an animal, and men as well; their agenda is told of in Psalm.
Psalm 62
King James Version (KJV)
4 They only consult to cast him down from his excellency: they delight in lies: they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly. Selah.

The entire understanding of Genesis can change if the beasts of the field then are people. This would then say that there were a period of wild beasts on earth before man, and a population of people were created on the same day and after the wild beasts. The beasts of the field is how God describes it in His words with confirmation of the parallel in Job 5. Thanks

 

[GenemZ]

Genesis 1 says before and Genesis 2 says they were created after humans. Which is right?????

God was creating [bara] in Genesis 1. To create 'out from nothing.' Example... The heavens and earth were not made out from substances that had been already existing. God spoke it, and the heavens and earth were created *out from nothing.* Ex nihilio.

God had rested from all creating in Genesis 2. Instead.. He molded and formed [yatsar] bodies from what had already been created.

In Genesis 1 it was always God seeing it was good. God was envisioning what He created things for. He could also see the invisible souls that he created in Genesis 1.

In Genesis 2 what we are presented in Scripture was something that we could have seen if we had been there to watch.

In Genesis 1, God was creating [bara]. Creating things out from nothing the *souls* of the land animals. It was the soul of man that God had created uniquely in his image. The souls of animals were not created in God's image.

Now...

In Genesis 2 we see God molding and forming [yatsar] from the previously created earth a body. One body that the previously created soul was to inhabit. A soul to be made alive to the physical creation. The animal bodies were 'molded and formed' after man received his molded and formed body. But, those souls had already been created in Genesis 1!


Note the beginning of Genesis 2!

Genesis 1:1-3

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating [bara] that he had done.

​

All creating [bara] was accomplished by God before we get to read Genesis 2. God only created [bara] in Genesis 1!

Genesis 2 is not a creation account.

What God does with what he had created in Genesis 1, takes place in Genesis 2. God does no creating in Genesis 2. It can be said that the Lord was being artistically and scientifically creative in how he utilized the elements of the earth. Utilized to produce physical bodies for man and the animals. But, that very earth he used to mold and form those bodies had been created prior.

The Lord God breathed into the nostrils of the inanimate body that He had only 'molded and formed' [yatsar - not - bara] out from the elements of the earth had been already created in Genesis 1:27. It was man's soul that God created in His image. Not the body.

Only Genesis 1 is an actual creation account. Genesis 2 is an account of how the Lord with Divine ability produced out from what had been created the bodies for the souls that had been created in Genesis 1.

When it says in Genesis 1 that "God saw." It was making it known that God was seeing in his omniscience what was to happen after he completed what was created. God was envisioning the outcome of his creation. Nowhere in Genesis 2 do we read "and God saw." For in Genesis 2 God was dealing with what had been created and was visible for anyone to see.




Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[ptomwebster]

Were animals made before humans or after? Genesis 1 says before and Genesis 2 says they were created after humans. Which is right?????

Some animals were made before and some animals were made after. There would be no need to have farm animals before the farmer was formed.

 

[GenemZ]

Job 5:23
King James Version (KJV)
23 For thou shalt be in league with the stones of the field: and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee.

Job 5:23
New International Version (NIV)
23 For you will have a covenant with the stones of the field,
and the wild animals will be at peace with you.

Job 5:23
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
23 for you will be in league with the stones in the field,
and the wild animals will be at peace with you.

The word 'wild' was added in by people who read the text literally. They must then believe that men can talk to rocks, and perhaps this is where the silly idea of talking to rocks came from?

Job was speaking of God's protection for a faithful believer. Wild animals were a feared source of death and serious harm for men in those days. And, stones were used by others for attacking and harming a traveler. God was speaking of the believer with right standing with God, how God will protect such a believer.

 

[greentwiga]

Job was speaking of God's protection for a faithful believer. Wild animals were a feared source of death and serious harm for men in those days. And, stones were used by others for attacking and harming a traveler. God was speaking of the believer with right standing with God, how God will protect such a believer.

Beasts of the field meant beasts of the field. There were beasts of the forests and also beasts of the mountains, etc. Now, in the field were dangerous beasts, as there were in other places. Our domestic animals came from beasts of the field, grass grazers. Therefore, the passage could refer to wild animals of the field or domestic animals of the field. Making it wild animals conflicts with Gen 1. Making it domestic animals puts the two chapters in harmony. God's word never disagrees with itself. Our interpretations frequently do.

 

[SG9]

Beasts of the field meant beasts of the field. There were beasts of the forests and also beasts of the mountains, etc. Now, in the field were dangerous beasts, as there were in other places. Our domestic animals came from beasts of the field, grass grazers. Therefore, the passage could refer to wild animals of the field or domestic animals of the field. Making it wild animals conflicts with Gen 1. Making it domestic animals puts the two chapters in harmony. God's word never disagrees with itself. Our interpretations frequently do.

Are you saying that the 'beasts of the field' were dangerous grass grazers?
I wonder then how grass grazing beasts are a danger to men even enough for God to make a covenant between the them, and where can I find further details about this covenant with animals? I must have missed it when I read the Bible. Thanks

 

[GenemZ]

Beasts of the field meant beasts of the field. There were beasts of the forests and also beasts of the mountains, etc. Now, in the field were dangerous beasts, as there were in other places. Our domestic animals came from beasts of the field, grass grazers. Therefore, the passage could refer to wild animals of the field or domestic animals of the field. Making it wild animals conflicts with Gen 1. Making it domestic animals puts the two chapters in harmony. God's word never disagrees with itself. Our interpretations frequently do.

Problem is? The KJV strikes out one more time.



Job 5:23
King James Version (KJV)
23 For thou shalt be in league with the stones of the field: and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee.

Job 5:23
New International Version (NIV)
23 For you will have a covenant with the stones of the field,
and the wild animals will be at peace with you.

Job 5:23
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
23 for you will be in league with the stones in the field,
and the wild animals will be at peace with you.


Since when, would domesticated animals not be at peace with a person? Why would Job need to say that then?

And, when would rocks, that just sit there under normal circumstances, need to be at peace with a person? Your way makes no sense.

Look at the context of that passage!



19 From six calamities he will rescue you;
in seven no harm will touch you.

You need to be rescued from farm animals and rocks sitting on the ground?????????

Now.. would someone please get off of this diversion away from the theme of the thread, and take the time to see what is said in post #34? I will repeat it again since everyone involved with their own private sub-debate just passed it by. Thank you.

 

[GenemZ]

Now, back to the original intent of this thread for a moment, please?

Genesis 1 says before and Genesis 2 says they were created after humans. Which is right?????

God was creating [bara] in Genesis 1. To create 'out from nothing.' Example... The heavens and earth were not made out from substances that had been already existing. God spoke it, and the heavens and earth were created *out from nothing.* Ex nihilio.

God had rested from all creating in Genesis 2. Instead.. He molded and formed [yatsar] bodies from what had already been created.

In Genesis 1 it was always God seeing it was good. God was envisioning what He created things for. He could also see the invisible souls that he created in Genesis 1.

In Genesis 2 what we are presented in Scripture was something that we could have seen if we had been there to watch.

In Genesis 1, God was creating [bara]. Creating things out from nothing the *souls* of the land animals. It was the soul of man that God had created uniquely in his image. The souls of animals were not created in God's image.

Now...

In Genesis 2 we see God molding and forming [yatsar] from the previously created earth a body. One body that the previously created soul was to inhabit. A soul to be made alive to the physical creation. The animal bodies were 'molded and formed' after man received his molded and formed body. But, those souls had already been created in Genesis 1!


Note the beginning of Genesis 2!

Genesis 1:1-3

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating [bara] that he had done.

​

All creating [bara] was accomplished by God before we get to read Genesis 2. God only created [bara] in Genesis 1!

Genesis 2 is not a creation account.



What God does with what he had created in Genesis 1, takes place in Genesis 2. God does no creating in Genesis 2. It can be said that the Lord was being artistically and scientifically creative in how he utilized the elements of the earth. Utilized to produce physical bodies for man and the animals. But, that very earth he used to mold and form those bodies had been created prior.

The Lord God breathed into the nostrils of the inanimate body that He had only 'molded and formed' [yatsar - not - bara] out from the elements of the earth had been already created in Genesis 1:27. It was man's soul that God created in His image. Not the body.

Only Genesis 1 is an actual creation account. Genesis 2 is an account of how the Lord with Divine ability produced out from what had been created the bodies for the souls that had been created in Genesis 1.

When it says in Genesis 1 that "God saw." It was making it known that God was seeing in his omniscience what was to happen after he completed what was created. God was envisioning the outcome of his creation. Nowhere in Genesis 2 do we read "and God saw." For in Genesis 2 God was dealing with what had been created and was visible for anyone to see.




Grace and peace, GeneZ